In article <4101gc$626@quark.foobar.co.uk>, siyer@foobar.co.uk (Sunil Iyer) says:>>skottay@acs.ryerson.ca (Seby Kottayil) wrote:>>[Lots deleted]>>> With this chain of thinking, I have concluded that "If we exist, >>our existance simply proves the existance of others like/unlike us". >>Just because we are unable to understand/comprehend a higher >>intelligence/being, we CANNOT conclude that there is NO God.>>You seem to equate any higher intelligence/being with God. Many of us>would agree that there are quite likely other beings in the Universe>who are more intelligent than us, but it does not mean there is any>God.

I disagree. There cannot be a comparative without a
superlative. I think the above point is very straightforward
and clear. We may not be able to identify that superlative,
but, we postulate its existence by recognizing comparatives.

>>You also imply that there is only one God. Why shouldn't there be a>different God-figure for each populated world?

God is by definition absolute; any parallel concept is essentially
identical. So what you have suggested is something similar to the
existence of multiple plenaries, like the kalAs and avatAras of
Lord ViSNu.>>>All in good spirit :-)